Its intent was to make sure that power was not held in by one single man. And in that it has failed. I see no point in keeping it. Makes a nice conversation piece though.
First it has not failed as we have no king.
So you're just ridiculously wrong there. Furthermore it was also made to protect the individual from mob politics. It has held so far... it does show signs of wear but nothing is perfect under the sun... what is damaged can be repaired.
So long as you're willing to try.
=================================================================
Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself now. You know they failed at putting things down in recursive legal terms, so you cannot in your argument assume that they did write "exactly what they meant".
I think you misunderstand me, and what I'm trying to say.
Yes, they didn't use legal terminology to define their exact terms. Which in some ways is good, other ways bad. What I'm saying is that they should have taken the time to find a
clear way of phrasing it that didn't leave it open to confusion based on the cultural shift which they had to know was going to occur.
no, you don't understand. They were extremely clear. Their words unlike most legal documents can be understood by just about anyone. That was part of it's greatness.
Read a legal contract however and practically no one but lawyers really will understand it. But such contracts are nice because they repeat the same terms OVER AND OVER AND OVER again changing phrasing using precise legal terms which are NOT linked to the English dictionary so much as special legal dictionaries.
Why do lawyers "NOW" do that... as opposed to in the past? Because in the past for whatever reason there weren't unredeemable little scumbags floating to the surface in the toilet bowl of creation to INTENTIONALLY misinterprete otherwise clear language.
Had the founders written the constitution like laws are written today it would be a 500 page legal document that you'd have to go to law school just to read.
But you won't be able to misinterpret it.
I'd just assume we keep it as it is and then just shoot anyone in the face that goes out of their way to misinterpret it... but if we need to parse it all into legal documents that would break the back of a horse and beyond the understanding of anyone with less then 8 or so years of legal training... then so be it.
I'm just so tired of ignorance and pride being used as an excuse break any rule that gets in their way.